User reviews

Anaconda went from Hollywood blockbuster to Hollywood B-movie to Scyfy channel garbage and this 4th outing is most definetly the latter.

To its credit it follows on from part 3 pretty well, though considering the two movies were filmed back to back this isn't all too shocking a fact.

Once again our Dr.Amanda Hayes is involved the anaconda/blood orchid lacklustre adventure though now we've lost the "Hoff" and gained the underrated though a tad hammy Linden Ashby.

The sfx are even worse than the previous movie but thankfully everything else is better, marginally better anyway.

The excellent John Rhys Davies also returns but yet again has a tiny role. Why have the best actor in the smallest role? Heartbreaking, truly.

Though the Anaconda franchise seems to have merged with Lake Placid I'm hoping this is the end of the solo movies, they're simply not entertaining at this stage and the franchise has been milked far enough.

One for big fans of the franchise who don't care about just how far the quality has dipped.

The Good:

Carries on from the previous movie well

The Bad:

Really poor cgi

Plot is really generic

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Someone really needs to have a word with the creators about the anacondas teeth

An oddly large number of people seem to want to be eaten by giant snakes, who knew?

Let's start it of with the acting. When I watch a movie, I expect it to feel real. I expect it to feel natural. When I was watching this movie I felt horrified by how the directors can actually think that people start dialogs like they do in this movie.

The effects does not feel real and the plot has definitely been used before. And the way the movie flow and the way things happen, feel so fake. And not like some kind of Quentin Tarantino movie either.

To top it all of I feel like they made the wrong actors play the wrong characters. None of the voices feel like a fit.

Still, if you are really bored, You could watch it. But you should not watch this film to be amused.

Seriously, They must have known that this would suck. Yet they still go ahead and produce it. Why?

This movie was not as bad as expected. The acting wasn't Oscar worthy but for a Sci-Fi produced film, most of the cast gave it all they had. Speaking of the cast, there were plenty of characters in this film, that's for sure. Maybe a bit too many. So much so that the two other people I saw this with kept asking, "Well, who are these people?" or "Where was this guy in the movie before now? I never seen him before now!" And it's true. There were so many characters and competing story lines that it was hard to keep track of exactly what the heck was going on sometimes.

Another problem with cheesy horror films like this is that the writers have characters do the dumbest things just for the sake of moving the plot along or for an individual character to serve as an easy kill for the monster. There are a lot of instances in the movie where this plot device is used. It shows a serious lack of creativity on the writers' part. It makes the characters seem so cliché. And when they continue to do stupid stuff in situations where they should be more cautious or just use plain ol' commonsense, it's hard for the viewer to care when they end up in the mouth of an 100-foot anaconda.

Other things to note: Gore is not too bad although special effects overall are the worse. The film moves along at a consistent pace from start to finish and the ending hints at a sequel, but I'm not so sure that's a good idea. From the first Anaconda on up to this latest effort, there hasn't been anything new added to the franchise. And unless writers start actually being creative, there probably won't be anything added to the franchise that justifies another movie, which might explain why the major film production companies stopped after the second Anaconda film.

The first Anaconda I was not blown away by, the second had me entertained and the third was horrendous. The fourth was better than the previous instalment but in almost every way it is still poppycock. Crystal Allen returns and she is decent and John Rhys-Davies tries hard with his weak material and underwritten character, but that is pretty much the only praise I can give. The scenery/sets I suppose were sort of nice, but they were not given any justice by the dull photography and hackneyed editing. The music is generic and forgettable again, the effects are not that great and don't do anything to enhance any suspense in the atmosphere. The direction is also sloppy, the dialogue is awful with none of it ringing true and the story is an incoherent mess. The acting apart from Allen and Rhys-Davies is very poor and not helped by the fact that there are too many characters so any empathy we try to feel doesn't come out. Overall, a mess but better than the third. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Traveling around Eastern Europe, a research team trying to find out the origins of the earlier group run into a scientist concerned with the giant killer snake on the loose and try to outlast the deadly creature.

This one was a decent if decidedly lacking sequel. There's still some rather good stuff here in dealing with the tactics of the snake as the last half is rather full of snake encounters featuring a lot of clever getaways which makes the scenes more enjoyable due to that, with the flower-scent-on-the-clothes trick is rather cool and unique and the several different ways of attracting the snake after different members of the group are really nice. Even just normal defensive tactics such as the traps around the safe-house and the gas-tank bomb make for some great moments spread throughout the film. There's also some rather fun action scenes in here which are the confrontations with the snake. The opening in the mine is one of the better scenes in the film which has a lot going for it in the rather claustrophobic surroundings of the area with the inherent tension, the action in the chasing through the different tunnels and the way it works the different escapes makes it really good, while the chase through the woods after the snake breaks through the camp is really good from the snapping twigs and off-screen noises of the snake breaking through the branches to the need for a hiding spot and really adds some nice action into the mix. There's also the fun to be had with the finale where the film mixes in a spectacular chase concept with the snake going after the fleeing car while a big brawl rages on the outside leading to a fun, exciting and really enjoyable scene. The last plus here is the film's blood and gore, even though there was a couple of things here that didn't work too well. One of the biggest factors here is the film's tendency to lead to a long series of scenes that offer up little excitement, lasting a while before snake attacks. The early parts of the film makes for lots of chewed up screen-time as they travel through the underbrush to get to the camp as well as the back-and-forth styles of the two other groups involved in the action, where the scenes with the mercenaries following them are pretty much there to see the body count get bigger. They don't serve any purpose at all into the film's main plot and feel more like they're in there to tie up the connections from the first one, which didn't need it as all of these different elements severely hampers the pace and the amount of time spent with the snakes. There's also a rather irritating habit of seeing everyone in here purposely put themselves in danger just to get the action going, from exiting out a car the opposite side the snake's attacking on to purposely blowing a hole into a wall where the snake's at as well as trying to run away on foot from a sixty-foot snake, it features a lot of these scenes that aren't so logical just so that an action scene can be brought into the film. The last flaw here is the atrocious CGI used for the titular creature which is pretty-much common-place for these films and doesn't really deserve more than that. Otherwise, these re the film's problems.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Language.

This fourth installment in the ANACONDA series is in fact better than the third but miles away from the first two, it features returning actors Crystal Allen who is not a very good actress no offense intended, and John Rhys-Davies who plays his role excellently I might add, the supporting cast which is different than third one is in fact a lot better group of actors then those used in the third one, which is one of the things that made this film better.

Crystal Allen is actually a very attractive woman, but her acting as seen in this one and the previous film is very poor, most of the time she's rubber face and at serious situations she doesn't really play her part very convincingly, she just seems like she doesn't want to put much effort into her acting, like she's just trying to make a quick buck and go home.

Overall, an average snake movie but Ms. Allen would go up for a raspberry award for her acting, the film itself is just a time passer nothing more.

Shot back-to-back with Anaconda 3, this carries on the riveting saga of snakes, flowers and secret formulas. It's come a long, ridiculous way since it's humble origins. This continues the cheap, made for television feel. The CGI is just an effortless mess which just can't interact with it's surroundings. This snake must be as light as a feather to not disturb the dirt as it slithers. The original had the charm of campy "throat-o-vision" which was actually practical effects. The fourth installment doesn't even have David Hasselhoff. There were a few genuine laughs, which suggest this should have been a comedy. The grenade scene was just unexpectedly goofy, but pleasant.

I honestly have no idea why I keep watching stuff like this, it's a strange addiction. With no exaggeration whatsoever, I can say I've seen at least a hundred different scientists create a hundred different murderous creatures for a hundred different far-fetched reasons, usually set in a European country that just happens to have lots of cheap bit part actors. If finding the cure to cancer involves creating an invulnerable killer snake the size of the Eiffel tower, wouldn't the death toll be sort of the same either way? I know this snake is safely kept away behind a fence he can easily break through within seconds, but it still seems dangerous. Granted: a ridiculous plot is a given when it comes to this genre, so I can't rip on it too much.

What I will rip on though is that the cast is too crowded in this one. I know every established writer (the kind that gets hired for "Anaconda 4") says you need to hurt your characters and throw as much adversity towards them as you want, but come on: there's already a huge snake with a voracious appetite on the loose, do we really also need mercenaries to chase our main characters? Worse yet, the mercenaries seem like more of a threat than the title character, there are several stretches of time where everyone basically just forgets there's also a snake chasing them. You know the snake hasn't been in the movie enough when you hear its scream during the climax and one of the characters asks "what was that?". How this character survived I'll never know. Funny terrible moments like that do keep this show on the road though. There's the constant splitting up and then trying to find each other (hey, how about just not splitting up?), the snake that can't catch a guy on foot for over half a mile but has no problem keeping up with a jeep, the hilariously inept blue screen work during the car scenes, the final chick who empties two fully loaded handguns on just one mercenary because maybe the snake will die of old age, John Rhys-Davies chewing the scenery like there's no tomorrow: even if it doesn't have David Hasselhoff, this is just as entertaining as "Anaconda 3" (make of that what you will).

Yes This One Is Absolutely Bad I Hated Every Last Minute of it

Well obviously not - with horror there is never the end. Not really ever in any case. Although thankfully some movies have been left alone. But this is the end of the "story" that began with Part 3. And while the other two movies prior had nothing to do with the last two ... there is an obvious connection here. Still you could watch this, without having seen the other. On the other hand, why watch any of the two (part 3 and 4 that is)? Better watch 1 & 2.

Having said, I assume you have seen the third or don't care enough reading this, otherwise jump this paragraph. David Hasselhoff is no more, but we still have the driving force of John Rhys Davies here - or Gimli as some might still call him. Don't think this will bring him down .. bad jokes aside (which you will get a few of in the movie too), the CGI is bad and the acting isn't really helpful either. Considering the time and budget they had (same director as in 3 and was shot back to back with almost no time to prepare), some departments did a lot more than they got paid for ... it is what is, I guess

Anaconda 4 (2009)

** (out of 4)

Filmed at the same time as ANACONDA 3, this film here is a lot better but it still can't come close to the original. This time out a group of people find themselves in the Capathia Mountains where the billionaire from the previous film is yet again hiring someone to create a cloning like system. This time the blood orchids (from part two) are being used and sure enough, a snake gets into them, becomes huge and this time is able to regenerate itself. This film is certainly an improvement over the previous entry and the main reason is that the CGI is marginally better here. The snake still looks rather fake but not as fake as previously and the gore here isn't really used so that there doesn't have to look so fake. The story is still pretty weak as the main goal is to get a bunch of people fighting for their lives and trying to avoid the snake. Director FauntLeRoy handles the material here much better as the action is pretty good this time out and the actors aren't as bad either. Crystal Allen returns from the previous film as does John Rhys Davies. As expected, we get several death scenes and they're all rather campy as each one seems to try and top the previous in terms of over-the-top ways to die. I'm really not sure what plans are next for these Sci-Fi Channel reboots but let's hope this one here is the last and if the series must continue it comes in form of a big-budget remake. People constantly put remakes down but they usually turn out a lot better than needless sequels like this one here.

Donald E. FauntLeRoy (David Wolper's North and South, Book IV) directs with his acclaimed stellar style and delivers a fine entry in the Anaconda saga. Acting as cinematographer as well, he creates a environment of overwhelming dread and stark raving fear as he uses Romanian locations to stunning effect. Working from a script that is both intelligent and exciting, FauntLeRoy coaxes superb performances from a renown cast of actors, some of whom are returning after their respective triumphs in the previous Anaconda film. With an inspiring score by Peter Meisner, pulse pounding and atmospheric, this is an incredibly intense motion picture experience. Not for the faint of heart, the thrills never let-up and some of the set piece sequences will likely sear fantastic imagery into collective psyche of any audience. Probably the best sequel to the original Anaconda, the film is certainly superior to most sequels and offers a cautionary environmental message that gives it a bit more gravitas. There are indeed rampaging anacondas featured but Anacoda: Trail of Blood rises above the average horror film with production values seldom seen in movies of this type. The special effects are breathtaking at times and the shocks are unrelentingly intense. Simply one of the best horror films produced in 2009.